The decision by SAG president Alan Rosenberg and executive director and chief negotiator Doug Allen to delay the Strike Authorization Ballot originally scheduled to start January 3rd should be recognized as the smart move to make now when SAG’s solidarity is splitting down the middle. It is a mature recognition that both sides on this issue raise valid points and deserve to be heard before anything with the word “strike” on it is considered by members.The “Yes” camp believes that actors will be stuck with what is inarguably a lousy deal undermining residuals not just for the next three years but perhaps forever given Big Media’s historical refusal to contractually revisit new technologies. The “No” camp thinks that a Strike Authorization will inevitably lead to an ill-timed strike in this economic recession and that SAG should join the other Hollywoodguilds in 3 years to try to negotiate better terms with the AMPTP.

So what was supposed to be a January 24th weekend National Board meeting has now been moved up to January 12th and 13th. It’ll constitute one of the two plenary face-to-face confabs held each year. The NY Division and the Regional Divisions should have no trouble traveling to the Hollywood division’s backyard with so much advance notice. The point of this decision to delay is to ensure a fair airing of all views. (It even takes into account the “No” vote petition supposedly signed by “well-known” actors even though the list includes no mechanism for verifying the names posted on it.)

I believe that SAG now has a unique opportunity to bypass a strike authorization altogether and place itself in an even stronger negotiating position by following a third and less risky course of action: to vote on the AMPTP’s June 30th contract proposal.

Therefore, I urge SAG to drop the Strike Authorization Ballot for now. That 75% “Yes” vote threshold would be tough to succeed even if the economy were fine, TV and movie productions plentiful, and the big actors union had gone first instead of last in this contract negotiation. But it is what happens if the Strike Authorization Ballot fails that shows even holding the vote is a risk that’s too great to take. SAG would be left weakened, divided, and without any leverage to go up against the AMPTP. In that situation, SAG would have no choice but to accept the AMPTP June 30th deal now on the table.

So, SAG, take advantage of the choice that is still yours. I say the National Board should send out the June 30th AMPTP contract proposal as is and let the members decide to ratify it or not. Only a 50% threshold is necessary either way. To further heal the divisiveness, SAG’s National Board can refuse to offer a recommendation one way or the other about the deal. This would truly allow for the most democratic vote possible. Under normal circumstances, the negotiating committee would recommend the contract to the National Board, which would then stamp it with an endorsement. I’ve checked the SAG rules, and nothing there prevents the contract from being sent out “neutrally” for ratification now.

If the contract would have to be judged based solely on its merits or demerits, then the employers would find themselves hoisted on their own petard. Because the scapegoating of Rosenberg and Allen and even the negotiating committee would have to stop. Even SAG’s own focus would change from the infighting to the deal, which is where it belonged in the first place.

So let’s say the contract is sent out for a vote now. What happens next?

If the contract is ratified, then SAG holds its fire for three years and I predict the mother of all strikes by two or more guilds will hit Hollywood at that time. Basically, Big Media is swapping big pain now for much less hurt down the line. They’re betting that their cartel will control even more of New Media. As for SAG, it’s clear that the reality of working under its own contract or AFTRA’s will leave even affected members bitter at having been bullied into a bad deal.

But if the contract is rejected, then the AMPTP and Big Media would have to realize that this isn’t just Rosenberg or Allen shooting their mouths off about the rotten terms. Instead, SAG members themselves would have said “No” to the deal. It would also send a message to the moguls that leaving these negotiations in the hands of the labor lawyers didn’t work. And Carol Lombardini’s “tryout” for Nick Counter’s job as AMPTP presidet was a big fat failure. The Hollywood CEOs would have to start engaging in backchannel negotiations just like they did during the WGA strike. Now SAG could bargain from a position of real strength. Because they would be representing the will of their members. As for a Strike Authorization Vote, that could still hang out there as a last-ditch resort which hopefully proves unnecessary.

This is not my fight. But this is my website. I’m not presuming to act like a know-it-all. But like any journalist covering the business of Hollywood, I spend all day talking to very smart people (as well as a lot of mouthbreathers) who make up all facets of the entertainment business. But no one whispered in my ear what to post here. Occasionally, during the writers strike, I offered suggestions (like bringing in the agents, which ultimately proved helpful). So I respectfully urge SAG to consider my proposal. Or not. Again, your choice.
—
Here is Doug Allen’s letter to SAG’s National Board announcing the delay:

Dear Screen Actors Guild Member,

A number of National Board members have expressed concern about the organized opposition to SAG’s vote “yes” campaign to encourage members to authorize the National Board to determine whether to call a strike in the TV/Theatrical contracts. While almost 100 high profile members and 2524 total members have endorsed the strike authorization vote mandated by the National Board, more than 100 high profile actors and 1373 actors have lent their names to the opposition campaign. This division does not help our effort to get an agreement from the AMPTP that our members will ratify.

Accordingly, President Rosenberg and I have decided to call a special face-to-face National Board meeting in Los Angeles, during the week of January 12, to discuss how we can address this unfortunate division and restore the consensus demonstrated by the National Board at our October meeting.

The Christmas and New Year’s holidays, and the Commercials Contract W&W plenary in New York the first week of January, preclude scheduling such a meeting before the week of January 12. In accordance with our Constitution, this special meeting will constitute one of our two face-to-face plenary meetings for 2009.

In light of the subject matter of this special meeting, the strike authorization balloting will be re-scheduled to take place over a three-week period immediately following this special board meeting. This will provide us with more time to conduct member education and outreach on the referendum before the balloting.

This meeting will replace the January 24, 2009 plenary and will occur in Los Angeles all day January 12, and part of January 13.

The last year has surely been a challenging one, but after long sessions of hard bargaining, all of the Guilds and Unions in our industry, except one, have reached new labor agreements. These agreements contain meaningful economic increases and first-ever new media rights and residuals. We are proud to have made such important agreements even as the national economic crisis has worsened almost by the day. We sincerely hope that, before too much time passes in 2009, we will also reach a labor agreement with the Screen Actors Guild. For that reason, we are continuing to urge SAG members to study the Producers’ offer at AMPTP.org, and make an independent decision as to whether it makes sense to strike over a deal that will raise wages, raise benefits, add new residuals and establish jurisdiction in new media for the first time.”

78 Comments

Spot on, Nikki – as usual. A 50% go-or-no-go vote is much more likely than a 75% “super majority” in this climate. Either way, let’s get this show on the road.

But if the contract is rejected by voting SAG members, what forces the AMPTP to do a damned thing? Nikki wrote, “The Hollywood CEOs would have to start engaging in backchannel negotiations just like they did during the WGA strike. Now SAG could bargain from a position of real strength.” I’d love for that to happen, but what’s the AMPTP’s motivation in that case?

Josh • on Dec 23, 2008 11:29 am

This is logical, but SAG won’t do it. Organizational inertia prevents nearly all revisions to any sort of plan. The first idea is the one that happens, no matter what changes on the ground or how superior future ideas may prove.

finn jones • on Dec 23, 2008 11:29 am

Your proposal is simple and strong and ought to be considered by the national board. It carries within it two of the four proposals stated in the statement initially signed onto by the NY Division board:

• That all plans for a strike referendum cease;
• That the president of Screen Actors Guild, Alan Rosenberg, immediately call an emergency national board meeting;

Later, this became a national statement. From coast to coast, board and council members across the country have joined with NY and signed onto it. It is good that Unite for Strength joined the movement as it swept from the east coast to the west, and interesting that your suggestions here parallel it so closely.

Perhaps there’s hope after all.

Tom Ligon • on Dec 23, 2008 11:29 am

“…the SCAPEGOATING(!!!!) of Rosenberg and Allen and even the negotiating committee”??????

Nikki – Crumminy! Who do you think developed this mess?

nmh • on Dec 23, 2008 11:29 am

With all due respect Nikki, that’s a terrible idea. Here’s how it plays:

1) The vote goes out and the AMPTP offer is rejected by, let’s say, 60%? (I’m picking a number out of thin air, it doesn’t matter what the number is, call it 90% or call it 51% the situation is the same).

3) SAG has to repeat the process which a) costs enormous amounts of SAG’s money, b) takes weeks and weeks, and c) means that the AMPTP continues to employ SAG workers on the old contract and at the old rates, effectively saving millions of dollars.

This process rinses and repeats again and again, each time with fewer and fewer actors rejecting the new contract since they are now losing a lot of money until eventually it’s passed and SAG has gained about the same as they would have had the intelligently negotiated in the first place.

Ethan • on Dec 23, 2008 11:29 am

Niki touches on something here that’s bothered me: I have heard nothing from Guild leadership in regard to plans for failure. I’m reminded of the US government’s refusal to consider failure in Iraq, as “not an option,” and how well that’s worked out for all of us. Well, what happens if strike authorization fails? What happens if authorization is given and the AMPTP says, “Who cares?” and still doesn’t budge? What happens if then a strike is called and still there’s no change in offered terms? The results of each of these failures could be catastrophic, and I’ve heard nothing about SAG’s consideration of these possibilities, or plans should they occur. I believe the union deserves what it’s fighting for. But without the ability to consider leadership’s plans for possible failure, I don’t feel able to give my authorization to go to war.

Jessy S. • on Dec 23, 2008 11:29 am

Nikki, Love the proposal on its merits. Regardless of what happens, however, there will still be a divided guild because the membership would likely vote down the AMPTP’s “final offer.” If that happens, the New York board could accuse Alan and Doug of anything including trying to buy votes and so on. At this point, the AMPTP could stage a lockout in order to move all television over to AFTRA.

In the best case scenario, Alan and Doug would go to the AMPTP tomorrow and ask for residues and force majore to be saved in turn that the SAG will drop its demand for no French Hours, accept the AFTRA new media terms, and ask that the newly ratified contract, which they support, be retroactive to 12:01 AM on July 1st, 2008 with all TV payments already made being grandfathered into the new contract. Failure for the AMPTP to agree to these terms will result in the contract being sent out without an endorsement.

Nikki is right when she says that there will be a major strike in 2011. It will be between the AMPTP and WGA yet again because some members clearly aren’t happy with their contract, and SAG will be in prime position to join them.

Bode O'Toole • on Dec 23, 2008 11:29 am

Good call, Nikki. A smart way out of the corner SAG is being backed into.

Hear hear! I don’t know a single “anti-strike” person who likes this deal. Let the membership see how bad this proposal is, watch it go down in flames and then start talking “strike” again.

Anonymous • on Dec 23, 2008 11:29 am

Letting Clooney and Hanks, and their ilk, push the Guild around, given that they are both “Producers” who, most likely, have productions in the pipeline, should not be tolerated! Where is their allegiance? Is it with SAG or the AMPTP? And, if they had remained just performers, where would their support be then? Come on SAG! Keep it together!

nikki i’m impressed with your call for a SAG action. as a member of several unions for several decades your plan is astute and image-proof for the leaders of SAG. You give them an easy play. god bless you for being above the fray.

#44 • on Dec 23, 2008 11:29 am

I have been saying this from the beginining! …. We have always head a third option…….!!!!!!!!!

Brandi W. • on Dec 23, 2008 11:29 am

I think this idea seems the most democratic trade-off to the current conflict of personalities.

But, what happens if SAG members narrowly reject the contract (say, 51%-49%) and the AMPTP elects to enact a lockout?

How long do folks predict the lockout would last?

And wouldn’t a lockout, under those circumstances, lead (de facto) to AFTRA deals being increasingly utilized by the AMPTP until eventually SAG caves?

eric bogosian • on Dec 23, 2008 11:29 am

Thank you Nikki for maintaining the balanced view.

But let’s talk about “back channels”. It’s true there are no bosses at the studios with the kind of power that faded out during the 1980’s. We’re not going to see the kind of “back-channel” we say in those days.

But as the bosses’ individual power faded, so did the new star-producers’ power grow and grow.

I can think of at least seven producer-stars, all members of SAG, who have enough power to call up the bosses at the studios and say, “Enough’s enough.” Why is this not happening?

And where’s Mike Nichols? Quentin Tarentino? James Cameron? Spielberg? – All these big bad guys…they can’t give this a nudge?

Why aren’t these guys calling up Tom Rothman and Peter Chernin and the others and start talking about how to end this slow-down?

Rather than criticize the guild leadership, why aren’t the prominent members of our union criticizing AMPTP?

I was part of the WGA strike. Alan and Allen had nothing to do with that negotiation, but it was the same thing. Producers dig in, don’t budge and blame the union leadership. Come on!

Eric Bogosian

Comedy of Errors • on Dec 23, 2008 11:29 am

Due to fear of acting aggressively in their own self-interest, The Screen Actors Guild is for all practical purposes, a dead organization… the body just isn’t cold yet.

So you think SAG will suddenly have leverage if the members reject the contract without a strike authorization? Not a chance. The studios will continue to drag their feet, just use the old SAG contract or sign AFTRA’s contracts, and push SAG quickly into irrelevancy.

Why would they improve the terms of the SAG contract without anyone forcing them to? It’s well known the AMPTP doesn’t bargain in good faith. All of television will become AFTRA-land, and the studios will get more and more used to it.

There is NO reason for the studios to blink unless that strike authorization passes, given AFTRA has a contract they can use if they have to. Don’t put it past AFTRA to start signing features soon… and don’t put it past them to abandon SAG again when it’s time to talk turkey on the commercial deal. Happy Holidays!

I agree with Nikki. This is a very astute strategy in terms of the dealing and healing the divisiveness facing the Union, which of course was the AMPTP’s strategy all and modus operandi along.

I also believe that this course of action, due to its directness and unexpectedness, will retake the initiative away from the AMPTP and force them to face the specifics of their dreadful deal.

Ummm... • on Dec 23, 2008 11:29 am

Why bother voting on this so-called proposal at all? There’s no need to take the temperature in the room. Continue without a contract, wait and see what happens when the new tenure in Washington takes over–since the sentiment for a non-strike vote seems to be, “It’s the economy stupid.”

And say, isn’t it DHD’s responsibility to stay neutral when it comes to “reporting” the news, as opposed to “being” the news as DHD seems to be on this issue?

DGA BTL • on Dec 23, 2008 11:29 am

The only way for the unions to “win” this is to negotiate all together. The only way that could possibly happen is 3 years from now…

Jake Lipson • on Dec 23, 2008 11:29 am

Agreed. This is a fantastic idea and the best solution possible to perhaps moving this miserable situation along one way or the other. Here’s hoping SAG listens to this.

writer • on Dec 23, 2008 11:29 am

Sounds very smart but what if 51% of SAG votes for the contract? It’s a done deal, right? SAG membership will have voted to give up residuals and clip approval and they’ll open up the enormous “new media” loophole. Who in their right minds believes that they’ll ever get them back? Who in their right minds believes ALL the unions will band together?
IATSE’s going to stop working so actors get back control over their likenesses? That’s amusing. Maybe SAG members will picket to help IATSE camera operators get back their “must hire” status. Maybe gaffers will march around with signs to help ensure writers get to hold onto separation of rights?
You’re probably right that the SAG leaders HAVE to withdraw the authorization but your proposal’s nothing to cheer about if the contract’s accepted.
And wait till the AMPTP’s “pattern bargaining” strategy has them using SAG’s willingness to accept these rollbacks as the basis to get rollbacks from everyone else next time around.
Who here believes that with or without an improved economy, the unions will be weaker and the AMPTP stronger in two and a half years? It’s counter intuitive and totally opposed to historical precedent.
If SAG membership votes for the rollback “final offer” nobody in any of the industry unions should cheer.

g • on Dec 23, 2008 11:29 am

This is the ONLY way to win this thing!!! Anyone with any brains knows that!!! If SAG doesn’t follow this advice they are gonna fuck themselves up so bad that they will never recover!!! SAG is in such a hole now that they can kiss this union goodbye if they don’t heed this advice!!! I want the actors to have all that they are asking for too….FUCK THE AMPTP….but you gotta be smart….and NIKKI’s advice is what all of the smarter actors are thinking!!!! Anyone who says STRIKE NOW will only be putting the death nail in SAG’s coffin!!!! WISE UP IDIOTS!!!!!